What is Digg?150 Comments
- danthek54, on 07/09/2009, -0/+114im sorry but aren't our aircraft carriers powered by nuclear reactors?
- Leviathan433, on 07/09/2009, -0/+70and a few subs.
- illinest, on 07/10/2009, -0/+37Even in the worst case, assuming the reactor melted down (not likely) and got exposed to the ocean (not likely) the tenth thickness of water is 24 inches.
That means that 2 feet away from the fuel the radiation would be reduced to 1/10th of it's original value. 4 feet away from the fuel the radiation would be reduced to 1/100th, etc....
But having worked in a nuclear power plant for many years I don't think the reactor will melt down or get exposed to the ocean.
Much of the public seems ignorant of the fact that there was only one significant accident in the history of nuclear power (Three mile island was technically a meltdown, but no one even got hurt and people continue to work at unit one nextdoor only a few hundred feet away, plus no measurable environmental damage...)
That includes not only decades of safe operation of the US plants, but also France which gets about 3/4s of it's power from nuclear and many other countries which have successfully operated nuclear power plants. Not to mention hundreds of nuclear subs and the US aircraft carriers.
And that one accident at chernobyl... well it would take a while to explain exactly but a good analogy would be revving your car past the redline and keeping it there to see if something happens. They mismanaged that plant very badly to create such a disaster. - gtrob, on 07/10/2009, -1/+33Modern nuclear power plant safety systems are more robust than you can imagine. Don't throw out ignorant comments implying danger unless you know what you're talking about.
- glendower, on 07/09/2009, -3/+31Its okay, Russia (aka the USSR) has never had any problems with nuclear power in the past...
- Junkyarddawg, on 07/10/2009, -1/+26The russians have plenty of nuclear powered ships too - and it hasn't all turned out that well. Some have sunk, some are decomposing on arctic shores, a few are currently "missing", which probably means that they've been left unattended by a pier in some abandoned arctic military base. Entire reactors have gone missing.
- headhot, on 07/10/2009, -1/+24Really? The first floating nuclear reactor? I'm pretty sure Aircraft Carriers float, and they have had nuclear reactors for 50 years.
- NBCLocal, on 07/09/2009, -8/+30I just feel like this is asking for trouble...
- OnAsideNote, on 07/10/2009, -0/+17Nuclear power plant that floats. . . . .
Sounds like an Aircraft carrier or submarine to me. - robschumacher, on 07/10/2009, -0/+15Better headline would have been "first floating commercial nuclear power plant". I.e., one that isn't used for propulsion of a ship.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -1/+15Don't mention the war heads that were in them..
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -5/+19Yeah, this is a good idea...
- BurgerDST, on 07/10/2009, -0/+13I'm sure the Russian nuclear reactors have improved. Not only are the Russian scientists brilliant, they have had access to all of the American "secrets" from the "top secret" computer with the password, 1234.
- Joest23, on 07/10/2009, -4/+17I was going to post one of those 'In Soviet Russia' jokes but I can't think of a good one.
Sorry, Digg. I let you down. D: - josephbloseph, on 07/10/2009, -0/+11I've heard Russians insist on making the distinction between Russia, and the non-russia portions of the USSR, like Ukraine. Anyway, I'm as comfortable with floating nuclear power plants as I am with nuclear subs, which is actually pretty comfortable.
- Fuel90, on 07/09/2009, -2/+12Maybe Aqua-man could actually help with something....
- satori3000, on 07/10/2009, -1/+10 Nuclear subs... Nuclear Aircraft carriers... hell they even built a Nuclear powered plane but it was ridiculous... anyway... Americans and Russians having been doing this for decades, this will just increase the size of the project. You're right that it's asking for trouble But nothing is really all that new on that front.
- lashtal, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9I'm sure Google will buy one or two of them to power its floating data centers.
- jwolcott, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9In Soviet Russia, eyes are below mouth.
- kelmaster1, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9Does anyone see the irony in this? They're using nuclear energy to extract a resource used for energy...
They say hydrogen is not feasible because of fuel cell technology and efficiency of the process; however this process doesn't seem that efficient... - chewycheese, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9don't forget submarines
- bigteebo, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8Worse yet, they are full of ghouls when you go inside.
- duewydo, on 07/10/2009, -3/+11In Soviet Russia nuclear power plan irradiates you!
does that work? - Kidsturk, on 07/10/2009, -1/+8I was thinking exactly the same thing.
I'm sure all those nuclear-powered vessels don't count? - appleseed1234, on 07/10/2009, -1/+8Dugg for accurately describing Chernobyl as a steam explosion and not a "meltdown".
- Solkre, on 07/10/2009, -1/+8Am I the only one who thinks that pretty damn cool. Though using a clean energy to power recovery of dirty ones is kinda F'ing backwards.
- diatonic1, on 07/10/2009, -0/+7US Nuclear ships have interlocks in the electric plant which are designed to prevent them from being able to power the grid when attached to shore power.
There are stories told in the nuclear Navy of times when nuclear ships have been used to power cities either for experiments, or after natural disasters have caused power outages. They override the interlocks which normally prevent powering the grid from the ship, and run the reactor while in port.
I spent 6 years in the Navy doing reactor chemistry/radiological controls. The sub I was on would often operate the reactor in port, when you weren't going to be somewhere long enough to want to go through the long process of shutting down the reactor, just to have to start it back up the next day. - kelmaster1, on 07/10/2009, -1/+7ya, only 46 nuclear submarines... I don't think they have enough :P
- drgkstep, on 07/10/2009, -2/+8Um...isn't a nuclear powered aircraft carrier a floating reactor, doesn't that beat this by 50 years or so?
- gurtfrobe, on 07/10/2009, -0/+6..."KIROV REPORTING"...
- Balanced, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5Admittedly, that was also under a government that was exceedingly intolerant of whistle-blowers. I remember reading that the guy in charge denied anything was wrong even when his guys came back covered in instant radiation-burn tans and told him the top of the reactor was gone.
- kopas, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5Extension cords?
- inigomntoya, on 07/10/2009, -1/+6In Soviet Russia, nuclear power is used to drill for oil.
- ripple123, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5yeah. nuclear reactors on a ship. where oh where did they get that idea from
- DirtPile, on 07/10/2009, -5/+10This is *so* Red Alert.
- Virgule, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5The drones are only reacting to the "Russia" trigger keyword... it's not really their fault.
- dronkmunk, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5What could go wrong?
- LordByr0n, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4OMGOMGOMG BAD MEN.... FEARMONGER ***** AHHHHHHHH
You'd be afraid of your own shadow if I told you it was planning something against you. - inigomntoya, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4That's CRAZY! Almost like using a diesel powered tractor to harvest corn to be turned into ethanol... NO ONE would ever do THAT!
- duewydo, on 07/10/2009, -7/+11Read into the Chernobyl disaster a lot more. You will come to find that the Russians practically broke every rule in the book that day, rules that were well known at the time but just not by their operators on that shift. If they had followed at least one or two, like NOT bypassing the safety overrides, maybe that disaster would never have happened. Also as far as design, they chose a rather antiquated and risky reactor design that was prone to generating air bubbles and hot spots in the cooling system. So when people through out what you think are ignorant comments about Russian reactors, they are spot ***** on.
If on the other hand you are just simply saying you are for nuclear power and that it can be a clean safe alternative, that is cool. In general nuclear can be a safe clean power source, we are just picking on the Russians here not nuclear power… - ripple123, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4in soviet russia, nukes float you!
- premiumballin, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4Who can build the most nuclear reactors for mining minerals in the Arctic?
Nah. - DreKor, on 07/10/2009, -1/+5but aircraft carriers use more power than many cities you could name
- ripple123, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4obumma? HOLY *****, SOMEONES GOT A PHD IN HILARITY.
- diatonic1, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4They're designed for variable buoyancy... and they are definitely designed to float.
Flood ballast tanks, sink. Pressurize ballast tanks and discharge overboard, increase buoyancy.
Throw the chicken switches, and it's "holy ***** we're coming to the surface!" - alpha88, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4What the Russians did to bypass safety regulations that caused the Chernobyl disaster are literally impossible to duplicate with modern reactors. The system will simply not allow you to do something so stupid.
- DBLaise, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3All you need is John McClane and you have an new Die hard.
- kenlaw, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3I have seen pictures of Russian nuclear subs powering remote coastal cities.
- eastwood24, on 07/09/2009, -2/+5But what about Sea-man? he can help too!
- josephbloseph, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3My guess would be there is a distinction between vessels that use nuclear power exclusively for their own systems, and reactors designed to supply power for external uses.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is